Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482.
- Perry v. State 705 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2005
- Perry v. State 705 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2005
- Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
- Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
- Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
-
Powers v. State
695 N.W.2d 371
Minn. 2005
1 (2004); see also Ives, d at 635
- Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
- Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
- Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
- Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
- Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- Koskela v. State 690 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 2004
- Koskela v. State 690 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 2004
- State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
-
Torres v. State
688 N.W.2d 569
Minn. 2004
wo exceptions are made: first, a claim is not barred where the claim “is so novel that the legal basis was not available on direct appeal” and, second, a claim is not barred where the “petitioner did not ‘deliberately and inexcusably’ fail to raise [the claim] on direct appeal * * * [and] fairness requires its consideration.” ().
- Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
- Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
- Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
- Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
- Sessions v. State 666 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2003
-
Sessions v. State
666 N.W.2d 718
Minn. 2003
A petitioner must allege facts that “if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, entitle him to relief.” ().
- Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
- Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
- State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
- Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
- Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
-
Boitnott v. State
640 N.W.2d 626
Minn. 2002
However, an exception to the Knajf-la rule provides that “[e]ven if the legal basis of the claim was reasonably available, this court may allow substantive review in limited situations when fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not ‘deliberately and inexcusably’ fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” ().
- Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
- Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
- Severson v. State 636 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2001
- Severson v. State 636 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2001
- Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
- Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
- Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
- Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
- State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
- State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
- Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
- Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
- Ademodi v. State 616 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2000
- Ademodi v. State 616 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2000
- State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
State v. Olson
609 N.W.2d 293
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Generally, where a direct appeal has been taken, the matters raised therein and all matters known, but not raised at that time, will not be considered in a subsequent petition for postconviction relief “unless the claim is so novel that it can be *299 said that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided.” (quotation omitted).
- State v. Rodriguez 590 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
- State v. Rodriguez 590 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1999